The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit heard arguments in September 2025 regarding a Missouri law that requires registered sex offenders to display signs during Halloween, after a federal district court ruled the mandate unconstitutional.
Thomas L. Sanderson, a registered sex offender who has maintained elaborate Halloween displays at his residence since 2000, challenged a Missouri statutory provision requiring all registered sex offenders to post a sign reading "No candy or treats at this residence" at their homes on Halloween.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in St. Louis concluded that the Halloween sign requirement violated the First Amendment and issued a permanent injunction against statewide enforcement of the law. The decision represents a victory for Sanderson, who argued that the compelled speech mandate infringed upon his constitutional rights.
Missouri Attorney General Catherine L. Hanaway, acting in her official capacity, and James Hudanick, Chief of Police for the City of Hazelwood, Missouri, both appealed the district court's ruling. The appeals were consolidated under case numbers 24-3120 and 24-3204, with the oral arguments submitted to the three-judge panel on Sept. 16, 2025.
The case centers on the intersection of public safety concerns and First Amendment protections against compelled speech. Missouri's law appears designed to warn trick-or-treaters and parents away from homes of registered sex offenders during Halloween activities. However, Sanderson's challenge raised questions about whether the government can constitutionally require individuals to display specific messages at their private residences.
According to court documents, Sanderson and his family have consistently maintained large, elaborate Halloween displays since 2000, suggesting the mandatory sign requirement directly conflicted with their traditional Halloween participation and expression.
The First Amendment challenge likely focused on the Supreme Court's established precedent regarding compelled speech, which generally prohibits the government from forcing individuals to express particular viewpoints. The compelled speech doctrine has been applied in various contexts, from license plate mottos to mandatory disclosures, with courts typically applying strict scrutiny to such requirements.
Missouri officials presumably defended the law as a narrowly tailored public safety measure designed to protect children during Halloween activities. Sex offender registration and notification laws have generally withstood constitutional challenges when courts find them reasonably related to legitimate government interests in public safety.
The Eighth Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Raymond W. Loken, Jane L. Kelly, and Steven M. Erickson. Judge Kelly authored the opinion, which was filed Jan. 2, 2026, though the full text of the decision was not available in the provided materials.
The case represents part of ongoing legal challenges to sex offender laws across the country. While sex offender registration requirements have generally been upheld, courts have struck down some provisions found to be overly burdensome or constitutionally problematic. Halloween-specific restrictions on sex offenders have faced particular scrutiny in various jurisdictions.
For Sanderson, the district court victory provided relief from what he apparently viewed as an unconstitutional burden on his family's Halloween traditions and First Amendment rights. The permanent statewide injunction meant no registered sex offender in Missouri would be required to display the mandated sign while the case remained on appeal.
The Missouri Attorney General's office likely argued that the sign requirement serves compelling state interests in child protection and that any burden on speech rights is minimal and justified. Law enforcement agencies often support such measures as practical tools for community safety during high-traffic events like Halloween.
The Eighth Circuit's eventual ruling could have implications for similar laws in other states. Many jurisdictions have enacted various Halloween-related restrictions on sex offenders, ranging from prohibition on decorating homes to limitations on distributing candy. Courts have reached varying conclusions on the constitutionality of such measures.
The case also highlights ongoing tensions between community safety concerns and constitutional rights in the context of sex offender laws. While public safety remains a paramount government interest, courts must balance these concerns against individual constitutional protections.
Given the September 2025 submission date and January 2026 filing, the Eighth Circuit moved relatively quickly in addressing this First Amendment challenge. The court's decision will determine whether Missouri can continue enforcing Halloween sign requirements for registered sex offenders or whether the district court's constitutional analysis will be affirmed.
The outcome may influence how other states craft similar public safety measures while respecting constitutional limitations on compelled speech. Legal observers will likely watch for guidance on how courts should balance community protection interests against First Amendment constraints in the sex offender law context.